Tuesday, July 18, 2017

On Recent Viral Videos [Clinton Wilcox]

I'm going to try to write this and my next article without being too polemical. It will be difficult, but these two article are coming from a place of utter frustration. Frustration at the fact that so many people in our society can't think. This is evidenced by the number of videos by vloggers on YouTube that contain poor arguments (actually, that's too charitable; their arguments are downright pathetic), and further evidence by the number of people sharing these videos so that they go viral because the people sharing these videos can't think and don't realize how poor (read: pathetic) the arguments actually are. So I'm going to write two articles responding to two such videos. This first one will be responding to a video by vlogger jaimekid2 Ben Shapiro's arguments against abortion. Why am I responding to these videos if the thinkers are so unsophisticated? Because people are taking them seriously.

So what is jaimekid2's argument against abortion? He says, "Ben Shapiro is wrong on abortion. The reason why he is wrong is because he doesn't hold his values consistently."

The problem here is that it's a textbook case of the ad hominem fallacy. Who cares if Shapiro holds his views consistently? He can be inconsistent and still be right on abortion. Whether or not he's inconsistent holds no bearing on the validity or soundness of his argument. That's all that needs to be said. But what are his other claims?

He says that one cannot consistently hold to the position that the intentional removal of an unborn human from the womb is murder and to show why he brings an analogy into it: If you believe abortion is murder and it should be outlawed accordinly, you must support all women having miscarriages being investigated for a possible negligent homicide, the same way you would want a person involved in running over someone else with their car investigated for negligent homicide.

This, of course, is really just a false analogy. What should really do away with this argument is the simple fact that before abortion was legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision, post-miscarriage women were not investigated en masse for their miscarriages. This is because there is no reason to suspect that a woman who miscarries did so out of negligence. No police investigation would be warranted unless there was probable cause to suspect that it was because of negligence or foul play. If a homicide detective is investigating a potential crime scene and discovers evidence suggesting it was a suicide, not a homicide, the investigator would not, then, investigate it as a homicide "just in case." He would write it down as a suicide and close the case. By the same token, if a woman shows no signs of foul play or negligence, she would not be investigated, especially if she was making regular appointments with her OB/GYN.

Another claim is that many women are at increased risk for miscarriages, and he trots out a laundry list of women who are at a higher risk for miscarriage (and it's worth pointing out that he doesn't source any of his claims). His point here is asking if we would be comfortable allowing a woman at increased risk for miscarriage get pregnant. The answer, of course, is yes because everybody, every single human being who is conceived, has a 100% chance of dying. Some people just die sooner rather than later. But life is considered a good thing, meaning that even if we conceive someone who has a more limited lifespan than unusual, giving that person life, even for a short time, is seen as a good done to that person. This is all to say nothing of the fact that every human being has a right, a natural right, to procreate and the government would be wrong to take this right away from anyone. If a woman conceived and later miscarries through negligence, only then could the state step in and punish her for doing so (and only if there was probable cause to suspect it).

He poses a further question: would people be comfortable with a woman trying to get pregnant who has a high risk of miscarriage since they would not be comfortable with someone drunk getting behind the wheel of the car. He says that failing to take causation into consideration is intellectually weak, but his position is the one that is intellectually weak because he fails to make a basic distinction: the difference between agent causation and natural causation. A person who gets behind the wheel drunk is obviously doing something wrong and doing something wrong by their own doing. Driving a car is potentially dangerous so anyone who gets behind the wheel drunk is impairing their ability to drive a car. Having an increased risk of miscarriage is not impairing a woman's ability to conceive a child, nor, for the most part, is it of her own doing (especially if it is due to disease, which would obviously be beyond her control). Since all human beings eventually die and life is fundmentally a good thing, there is no harm done in conceiving a child, even knowing there is an increased risk of miscarriage.

One of his claims that he failed to source, just alluding to March of Dimes, is that as many as half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. I know why he failed to source it: because that's not what they actually claim if you read their statement in context. Here's what March of Dimes really says: "Among women who know they are pregnant, about 10 to 15 out of 100 pregnancies (10 to 15 percent) end in miscarriage. As many as half of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage -- we don't know the exact number because many may happen before a woman knows she's pregnant."

This makes it ironic that he speaks of wanting to be intellectually honest when he can't even be intellectually honest with the facts. He'll probably fall back on saying "but they do say as many as half." Yes, but they clearly say we know 10 to 15 percent do, and then they follow up their claim by saying "we don't know the actual number." So their "as many as half" statistic is pure speculation, and "jaimekid2" used the speculative number rather than the factual number in order to try and bolster his case.

Despite all of his claims to "intellectual honesty" and "intellectual weakness," it is clear that "jaimekid2"'s arguments are just not good at all. They amount to a false analogy. Drunk driving is not a comparable situation to a woman conceiving with a greater chance of miscarriage, and it is also not the case that every woman who miscarries must be investigated for negligent homicide. Only in those cases with probable cause would it need to be investigated. The pro-life position is safe and sound from "jaimekid2."

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Why Don't Feminists Fight for Bodily Rights?

I will have to admit, I have begun to reconsider what it means to respect the bodily integrity of individual women. During a  recent outreach at UCLA and Cerritos college, two students told me that I should respect the autonomy that women have over their bodies.

Now, setting aside that the unborn entity in question is not a part of her mother's physical body (if she was, then any pregnant woman would have four hands, two heads, and two genetic codes, which is absurd) but is a separate body that is growing inside her, and dependent upon her. This does not mean that they are one and the same human being, but two humans beings connected in the most intimate way possible.

Now, many I have talked to have espoused the view that because the woman is carrying the child within her body, and because the child is completely dependent on her mother's body for her immediate needs, her mother therefore has say over what happens within her body. Complete bodily autonomy for women is inalienable on this view. This is what pro-life speaker Trent Horn calls the "Sovereign Zone" view.

Now, if I were to embrace this view, and thus defend a woman's right to her bodily "sovereign zone", then that means that the following must also be fought for and legalized along with abortion:

1. Thalidomide A drug that was originally used as an anti-nausea treatment for women experiencing morning sickness, it was banned in the early 1960s for the effect that it had on developing children in utero. The drug would cause either the limbs of the child to fail to develop or the limbs would fail to grow to their full length, leaving only a hand where a full arm should be. (Langman's Medical Embryology, Thirteenth Edition, page xiii)

Keeping in mind the view that a woman has full rights to what happens within her body, even if there is another human body present inside of her, to be consistent one would have to argue that the drug should be legalized as an appropriate treatment for morning sickness. This would mean that if a woman took the drug knowing full well the effects it could have on her unborn child, and caused her child to be born without arms or legs, she would bear no fault. Some have responded that this couldn't happen because she broke the law; and yet, abortion also used to be against the law. Why aren't advocates of bodily autonomy fighting for a woman to have complete control over her body in this regard, and working to overturn this law?

2. Abortions for Frivolous Reasons If a woman "Has the right to do whatever she wants with her body", then would it be wrong to kill her unborn child for any reason she wants to? In his book Abortion Practice, abortionist Dr. Warren Hern recounts a time where a woman came to his office seeking an abortion, as she was pregnant with a boy and wanted a girl child instead. Doctor Hern, ironically, expresses his misgivings about abortion in this case but he goes along with it anyway (Abortion Practice, page 85).

Dennis Prager also brings up an important point in this regard. Suppose in the near future we are able to determine through genetic testing the sexual orientation that a child will be born with. A woman finds out her son or daughter will grow up to be gay later in life. Using the "my body; my choice" reasoning, she gets an abortion so she won't be a parent to a gay son or daughter. Horrifying as this is, would we think she did something wrong in this regard? If we do think that this is wrong, then what about abortions for children who will be born with disabilities? Wouldn't that be wrong as well?

3. Abortions For Profit Two years ago the infamous Planned Parenthood videos were released by the Center for Medical Progress, which purported to show the organization illegally selling the bodily remains of aborted humans for profit. While many media pundits, political analysts, and Planned Parenthood themselves denied the accusation, it does raise an important question: Can a woman sell the bodily remains of her abortion for profit? Suppose a woman of child-bearing age, hearing that there is a market for fetal body parts and tissues, decides to become pregnant, then carries her child to term, and gets an abortion so that she may sell the body parts on the market. This may not even be legal, but why won't the advocates of bodily rights advocate for this kind of behavior, in the name of "Her body, her choice"? Why don't they fight to have this "right", and enshrine it in law?

4. Infant Starvation Philosopher Trent Horn also gives another category for bodily rights arguments that he calls the "right to refuse", where the advocate of bodily autonomy will argue that a woman has a right to refuse to sustain the life of her child in utero. During a conversation at UCLA recently, a student I talked to likened unwanted pregnancy to being forced to donate one's kidney in order to sustain another person's life.

However, in using this scenario, one has to remember that a kidney is only designed to filter the blood of the organism it belongs to. As Trent Horn notes, the uterus is an organ that is not designed to support the life of a woman, as a woman may go through her entire life without ever becoming pregnant, but is specifically designed to support the life of her very young son or daughter.

In applying this reasoning to the issue of bodily rights, suppose a woman gives birth to an infant who needs to survive on her mother's breast milk. Suppose further that baby formula is not readily available due to a health and safety recall, and it will take too long to put the child in a shelter or up for adoption. Since the mother is now the sole provider of the welfare for her child, even though this relationship is only temporary, can she exercise her "right to refuse support" for her child on the grounds that her child has no right to her mother's breast milk, even though her child will starve to death as a result? Is it a mother's moral and legal right to be able to "disconnect" for the sole purpose of starving her child to death? I think we would all agree that doing such a thing is monstrous.

In conclusion, it seems that an unwavering support for bodily rights for women can actually prove too much and be used to justify some very horrifying behaviors. Now, some will argue for bodily rights by giving reference to scenarios that are emotionally vexing, like poverty or hardship, but at best, this would entail that the right to abortion is extremely limited to the most extreme circumstances. And then one must ask why, even in these circumstances, is it fully permissible and morally acceptable to kill an innocent human being whose existence may cause hardship?

It is high time we stop playing games with human rights in order to justify the behavior that we want to ensure is accepted by society. We've been down that road before throughout human history, and it has never ended well. Instead, if we are going to defend bodily rights, no matter what that entails, we had better be ready to accept the consequences of that decision.

Friday, June 30, 2017

Book Review: A Practical Guide to Culture by John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle [Clinton Wilcox]

Special thanks to Brett Kunkle for providing me with a free copy to review the book.

There aren't many books that I'm aware of that try to talk about the culture as a whole. There are certainly some good ones out there (such as Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death), but Stonestreet and Kunkle's book, A Practical Guide to Culture, takes it a step further in that they don't just talk about our culture and how we got here, but they actually provide practical steps on how Christians ought to live in this culture and how to raise Godly children in a culture that can't wait to corrupt them. Even if there were other books about culture, as culture has a tendency to shift rapidly, books like this one are constantly needed. After all, the concept that a person can marry someone of the same sex, as one of our Supreme Court justices rightly pointed out, is younger than the smartphone. "Trans rights" wasn't even a thing more than a few years ago.

As you're reading through this book, you might start to despair about the state of our culture, as I have a tendency to do. But one of the greatest elements of this book is that while the authors agree the picture looks bleak, there is no reason to lose hope in our culture. Even if things don't get better, culturally, none of this is new. The ancient Jews had to endure trials and exiles in the Old Testament, and whether than wait around for rescue, they were called to live as God's people throughout their ordeal. Our hope is in Christ, not in a short-term fix like elections or predicting the rapture.

The book is a lot bigger than I was expecting, but it is very well-written. You won't feel like you're slogging through the book. They use illustrations to help understand the concepts that they're talking about.

The book is written in four parts. Part one talks about why it's important for us to understand our culture. Part two talks about the elements that go to make up our culture, especially the fact that technology is such a huge part of it (e.g. the internet and video games) and what impact that has on us as people. Part three talks about the various cultural elements that will end up affect children who grow up, and how parents can help preserve their innocent as long as they can, and how parents can help their children understand these elements once they're ready to discuss them. Some of the elements they talk about are pornography, the hookup culture, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Finally, part four talks about what our Christian worldview is and how our worldview interacts with the culture at large, a culture that is "pluralistic" and increasingly hostile to Christian views.

All the while authors critique the bad ideas of the world, they are never cruel to the people who hold these views. They remind us that "[i]f we see people as culture and culture as the enemy, we'll likely see people as the enemy and confuse their bad ideas with evil intentions. But culture is not people; culture is what people *do* as people." (p. 33)

I would say that this book is probably appropriate for high school age kids and older. While there is nothing overtly graphic in the book, some of the topics the authors talk about might be a little too adult for younger kids.

This book is simply a much-needed resource in today's cultural climate. If parents and educators aren't pro-active in inoculating children against bad ideas, chances are we'll lose them when they get old enough and go off to college, where Christian ideas are not taken seriously by their professors. A Practical Guide to Culture will go a long way toward helping to give them that preparation.

Thursday, June 29, 2017

A Conversation With a Congressman About Abortion

On a recent errand to the local office supply store to purchase a pair of bookends (just what every man in his early 20's shops for...), I happened upon a conversation with a man who happened to be running in the coming congressional election to become my district's next representative. During the course of our discussion, which had turned to the pro-life issue, he made several comments about the pro-life view that I think need to be answered clearly. While I was not able to respond to these points at the time, I'll briefly write them out here so that others may have an idea on how exactly to respond.

Before I begin, let's review the pro-life syllogism (a type of formal argument):

          P1: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
         
          P2. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.

          C: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Whether or not this argument succeeds is dependent on the truth of the premises. If both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows.

Keeping this in mind, here are the three remarks I got from the Congressional candidate:

1. "If the unborn is a person, then we'd have to amend the laws regarding the carpool lane to allow pregnant women to drive in the lane by themselves."
Frankly, I find this statement puzzling. So? Even if that were what we needed to do, what does that entail? How do the rules that determine the number of persons needed in a car in order for that car to legally drive in the carpool lane determine the status of the unborn as valuable human beings? The statement does nothing to answer the syllogism, and in fact simply assumes that the unborn are not full human beings.

This also confuses moral reasoning with civil traffic law, which tends to vary from state to state, many times due to the environment and the amount of traffic on the highways. There would be no need to change the laws regarding the carpool lane to include human beings in-utero, as the purpose of the carpool lane is to cut down on unneeded drivers( which doesn't seem to help in Southern California...)
As Clinton Wilcox wrote in an earlier post, carpool lanes are simply a societal convention, and not enough to determine personhood, nor should they be.

2. "The US Constitution only determines human beings to be persons at birth. We would have to amend the Constitution to allow for the unborn to be considered persons."
Actually, in perusing the constitution , the 14th Amendment is discussing the rights of persons who happen to be citizens. A non-citizen of the United States is obviously not going to enjoy some of the same privileges as an American citizen, but that does not mean they aren't a person because of it. If I cross into Mexico, I am considered a foreigner there, but I still retain my status as a person because of what I am, not where I call home.

Speaking of which, why does birth even matter in determining who gets to live? While birth is a milestone in terms of development, it seems odd to think that transitioning from one environment to the next will somehow make one protectable under the law. If only eight inches is what makes one worthy of protection, then it would seem that something like "human rights" and being a person is not really of much importance in the first place.

3. "What are you going to do about all the unwanted children? There are a lot of poor families who cannot afford to take care of their children. They will suffer worse without abortion."
Frankly, this statement is both question begging and demeaning at the same time. It begs the question, by simply pretending that abortion has no effect on those same children whatsoever. It would be absurd to say that we should legalize homicide for the poor, so that they can kill their already born children as well, and thus not have to worry about how they will take care of them. If it is wrong to treat children in that regard by eliminating them when their lives become burdens, then it is just as wrong, if not even more so, to kill them when they may possibly become a burden in the future.

Also, it is very demeaning to "the poor" and those around them to think that the only thing ensuring their welfare is through a particular policy. This is a classic "either-or" fallacy, in that if someone does not support policy "A", they want poor women to die in the back alleys of America, at the hands of illegal abortionists. Or that the poor families who do keep their children will not be able to make it financially, because of the number of children they must support.. This is absurd, and is a very low view to hold of one's fellow countrymen. Just because a particular law or social practice that is intended to help ensure one's welfare is not in place, does not necessarily mean that people will not find other ways to help themselves and those around them. Think about places like Interfaith, the Salvation Army, or the Red Cross. Just because a particular social practice is not in place in society(in this case, abortion) it doesn't mean that no one will step up to help those in need.

Needless to say, the candidate I spoke to will not be getting my vote.
  

Thursday, June 15, 2017

What The "Gosnell" Case Can Teach Pro-Life Advocates

Just this morning before I headed in to work for the day I was able to finish reading the Gosnell book that I had been given by a friend who works at a local Pregnancy Resource Center. I was able to finish it within a few days, although I do read fairly quickly as it is. Overall, this was the most disturbing story I have ever read about, and I have to say, it is extremely disheartening to consider that this entire ordeal came to light in a modern American city within just the last few years.

The story of Kermit Gosnell really needs to be looked at by pro-life advocates, in terms of what the reality of abortion is, how far some are willing to go in order to defend abortion "rights", and the monstrosity of the act of abortion on a living, though immature, human being. The story, as I will explain below, also sheds light on the strategy of using graphic images of abortion to reach hearts and minds that may never otherwise consider the issue in light of what happens to an unborn human being during abortion.

The story was written by two Irish journalists who detail the way the Philadelphia Police Department stumbled upon the crimes against humanity that were going on inside the abortion clinic known as the "Women's Health Society". They discovered that numerous women had been injured during botched procedures, infected sexually through the use of contaminated medical instruments, exposed to conditions in the clinic that seemed more appropriate to a Middle Ages medicine practice than to a twenty-first century women's health center, and even killed during botched procedures.

Even more ghastly than all of this was the way in which Gosnell treated the babies of women whose abortion procedures accidentally resulted in the baby being born. Gosnell would, in many instances "snip" the spinal cords of babies who had managed to survive the procedures.

Gosnell's practice was exposed to the public through the work of the Philadelphia PD, and other law enforcement agencies, and he was charged with multiple crimes, including infanticide and homicide.

The jury was, as the authors noted, comprised mainly of men and women who considered themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, and two who had considered themselves neither pro-choice or pro-life on the issue. As the trial commenced and continued over the course of the weeks, there was a change among many, if not all, of the jurors on their stance towards abortion.

The reason this changed is that the jury was exposed to the reality of abortion. It is quite easy to refer to oneself as pro-"choice" or "Women's rights". It can be quite another to know what those choices or rights will really entail. During the expert testimony of the Gosnell case, an expert witness from a local medical center was brought in to testify as to the procedures of abortion themselves, in order to determine for the jury whether or not Gosnell had killed the babies in his clinic "legally".

As the authors note, one of the instances in which the defense attorney for Kermit Gosnell, Jack McMahon, attempted to argue that Gosnell had killed the babies legally involved McMahon asking an abortionist, who was an expert witness in the case, to walk him through the steps of a legal abortion procedure. This, in turn, sickened the members of the jury, who were beginning to question their pro-choice views.

The prosecution also proceeded to display the images that were taken by investigators during the raid on Gosnell's clinic. The images showed the bodily remains of human fetuses scattered around in various containers, kitty litter boxes, milk jugs, and even toilets.

The images shown and the details of what happened to babies during both illegal and legal abortions brings up a point worth considering: Abortion is a horrifying, dehumanizing act of violence against an innocent human being. This case wasn't made to the jury by pro-life advocates. This was made by a judge and prosecution who were working to convict Kermit Gosnell while still defending abortion rights in public. The main point should not be missed: Abortion protests itself when it is shown honestly. Pro-life advocates, and those who consider themselves pro-life on the issue of abortion would do well to learn from the Gosnell case, in that being honest about what abortion is does a lot to persuade a public that has never considered the implications of being "pro-choice".

Provided, honesty about abortion should always be coupled with compassion towards those who are deeply wounded by the issue. When truth and compassion go hand in hand, hearts can be reached, and lives can be saved. The culture at large needs to be informed of just what abortion does to an unborn human being, and as the Gosnell case shows, images can be the most effective way of doing this.

The Gosnell book is one that everyone should pick up and read in order to understand just what consequences can result from bad ideas, and in order to understand the role that advocates for the life of innocent human beings must take so as to reach a culture that has attempted to move on from abortion without asking first, "Who stands to lose if we don't do anything about abortion?" The answer is obvious to anyone willing to ask.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Abortion is What Planned Parenthood Does [Eric Metaxas, G. Shane Morris]

Eric Metaxas did the BreakPoint commentary on June 7 regarding Planned Parenthood and its ties to abortion. BreakPoint has generously allowed me to share it here on our blog. Click here for the original article (where you can also find further reading and more information), and be sure to subscribe to BreakPoint on iTunes.
What does Planned Parenthood do? Everyone seems to know the answer except Planned Parenthood.
When I say “Colgate,” what comes to mind? Well, toothpaste, of course. Too bad no one in the 1980s explained that to Colgate when they launched a line of frozen dinners named “Colgate Kitchen Entrees.” Understandably, customers found the idea of eating food from a toothpaste company less than appetizing, and the whole experiment bit the dust.
But there’s another brand today trying very hard to convince the public that it sells more than one product. Planned Parenthood has spent the last few years insisting that its clinics offer all kinds of services besides abortions. As the latest stunt in this ongoing campaign, they’ve partnered with “Avengers” director Joss Whedon to produce a high-budget ad titled “Unlocked.”
In this three-minute propaganda piece, Whedon depicts a world without Planned Parenthood. It’s a dark and scary place where a mother dies of cancer because she can’t get screenings, where a couple breaks up because of a sexually transmitted disease, and where a young woman’s dreams of college are crushed by a positive pregnancy test.
Speaking with TIME magazine, Whedon said that if Planned Parenthood shuts down, “millions of people lose access to basic health services” like contraception, cancer screenings, and sex ed. In other words, he’s parroting the talking points we’ve heard non-stop from Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards and others who insist that the organization “does so much more than abortion.”
But as our friends at Save the Storks point out, Planned Parenthood’s 2014-15 annual report shows that they perform a meager 1 percent of the nation’s pap smears, and less than 2 percent of all clinical breast exams. The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute reports that over 80 percent of teens receive sex ed instruction from somewhere besides an abortion clinic, and contrary to repeated claims by Planned Parenthood’s leadership and advocates, they perform a grand total of zero mammograms.
In other words, all 650 Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics in the U.S. barely participate in real healthcare. In fact, Americans so rarely choose this abortion giant for other services, we hardly notice when the few clinics not offering abortions close.
LiveAction News reports that Planned Parenthood quietly shuttered three of its six New Mexico facilities, all of which were dedicated to those “other services.” Apparently, they weren’t covering expenses. Waving off the closures as no big deal, a Planned Parenthood regional official said—get this—that community health centers could pick up the slack. She might as well have admitted her organization’s services were not needed.
Colgate sells toothpaste, and Planned Parenthood sells abortions—more than anyone else in the business. In fact, it’s where over a third of all abortions in America happen. We know how Planned Parenthood’s bread is buttered, and Planned Parenthood employees know it, too.
Recent footage from undercover investigator David Daleiden captured affiliates at the National Abortion Federation conference who spoke openly of Planned Parenthood “selling” fetal body parts to “increase revenue.” Some also joked about pulling unborn babies apart and how “gross” it is when tiny eyeballs fall into their laps.
YouTube quickly removed the video, and now U.S. District Judge William Orrick is considering contempt sanctions against Daleiden, who’s already facing fifteen felony charges for taking this undercover footage in the first place.
Planned Parenthood wants to be known for nicer, less horrifying, less controversial services. But ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the day, their name means one thing: abortion. And lives depend on putting this big-name brand out of business
Written by: Eric Metaxas and G. Shane Morris
Reprinted by permission

Thursday, June 8, 2017

"If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would No Longer Be an Issue"

Among all the bad pro-choice sound bites that are thrown around in a culture that seems to thrive on tweets and memes, this has to be by far the worst one I have come across. During a discussion on the abortion issue in a sociology class a few months back, a student in the class made this comment in response to the professor talking about the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned in the near future.

Now, aside from being an extremely prejudiced statement (as if simply being male or female can determine the validity of an argument or idea) this assertion offers little in the way of an actual argument against the pro-life case.

The assertion that if I was able to become pregnant, I'd be pro-choice(I'd be female, if that was the case, and my mom and doctor would have quite a bit of explaining to do...), is so laughably bad, it needs an appropriate response:




Now that we've taken care of that, let's review the pro-life argument:

1. It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

2. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.

Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

If both premises are true, and the conclusion logically follows from the premises, then the argument is sound. The statement that "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal and widely available" does nothing to answer the argument put forward by pro-lifers (including pro-life women). The statement "Abortion is wrong" is either true or false, regardless of the gender of the persons saying it.

However, let's just assume, for the sake of discussion, that men could become pregnant. (Again, setting aside the fact that this would mean that there would no longer be biological males, but just assume it to be the case).

What does this end up meaning? If men could get pregnant, would this mean it is suddenly, magically acceptable to intentionally kill an innocent human being? In turn, would this also mean that abortion does not intentionally kill an innocent human being? How does something as arbitrary as gender, or even skin color, determine the answers to those questions? The science of embryology relies upon empirical research to determine the answer to the question "What is an embryo?", which is completely independent of the gender of the persons doing the research. The embryo either has an intrinsic human nature or it does not. Because of this, abortion is still a moral wrong even if men could become pregnant. Pro-lifers are not arguing that abortion is a moral wrong as long as it is done by women. Instead,  we argue that abortion is wrong because it unjustly ends the life of an innocent human being.

The statement does nothing to answer the arguments pro-lifers make against elective abortion, and instead relies on the very controversial assumption that all efforts to restrict abortion are based in a sort of "patriarchal" society that "oppresses" women. Even if that was the case, intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being would still be wrong. Even if a society is inherently unjust towards women and girls, the answer to such an injustice is to try and right the wrongs being done, not promote a further injustice against more innocent human beings who cannot defend themselves. Such a response is foolish and callous, and ends up resulting in the conclusion that the only way women and girls can respond to being mistreated is to turn around and mistreat other innocent humans who happen to be in their immediate care.

That, in itself, is the anti-woman and patriarchal view.